Michael Parks v. Patrick Eaton, No. 2:2020cv03267 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 by Judge Josephine L. Staton. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Michael Parks v. Patrick Eaton Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PARKS, 12 13 14 Petitioner, v. PATRICK EATON, Warden, 15 Case No. 2:20-cv-03267-JLS (AFM) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on 18 file and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 19 (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of 20 the Report to which objections have been made. 21 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. With the exception of the following, 22 Petitioner’s objections do not warrant discussion as they are properly addressed in 23 the Report. 24 Petitioner complains that the Report fails to address his allegation that the trial 25 court did not obtain a written waiver of his right to be present at his trial as required 26 by California law. (ECF No. 20 at 1-2.) To begin with, Petitioner’s assertion is 27 factually incorrect. The Report addressed his contention, noting that his allegations 28 did not raise a question about the federal constitutional validity of his waiver, but Dockets.Justia.com 1 rather boiled down to a procedural argument challenging the trial court’s failure to 2 obtain a formal waiver. (ECF No. 18 at 17-18.) Furthermore, Petitioner’s objection 3 relies upon an alleged violation of section 977 of the California Penal Code. Federal 4 habeas corpus relief, however, is available only when a petitioner has been convicted 5 or sentenced in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It 6 is not available for errors in the interpretation or application of state law. Swarthout 7 v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 8 A violation of California’s rule regarding a written waiver is not grounds for federal 9 relief. Thus, even assuming the trial court erred by failing to properly apply the 10 California statute, this would not alter the conclusion that the state court’s 11 determination of Petitioner’s claim was neither an unreasonable application of 12 federal law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record. 13 14 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. 15 16 DATED: March 22, 2021 17 18 19 ____________________________________ JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
